The Eagle Returned: Geopolitical Aspects of the New Lunar Race

ABSTRACT

After 50 years, the Moon is becoming a center of attention in the geopolitical competition among space powers. The planned lunar settlements to take place starting in 2025, or soon thereafter, will hold geopolitical considerations and impacts. This paper highlights and summarizes factors that will affect the process of lunar settlement in the context of the importance of lunar poles. The poles include the location of key resources – permanent sunlight for power generation and water – for the state actors involved in the settlement projects. Access to these resources will influence relations among the actors. The paper points to the need to participate in the lunar settlement process for state actors not to be left behind or in a disadvantaged position for access to key resources. Further discussed is the geopolitical context concerning settlement of the geographically advantageous polar regions, primarily the south lunar pole. If this is undertaken by adversarial states, a space power, dependent on the outcome of that competition, would be limited in its own efforts to develop an independent settlement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ “Space Data Insights: NASA Budget, 1959–2020,” The Space Report Online, undated, https://www.thespacereport.org/uncategorized/space-data-insights-nasa-budget-1959-2020/.

² For more details, consult, among others, Saul B. Cohen, Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015); and Robert D. Kaplan, The Revenge of Geography (New York: Random House, 2012).

³ James C. Moltz, Crowded Orbits: Conflict and Cooperation in Space (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 38; Peter L. Hays, Space and Security: A Reference Handbook (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011), 19–20; and Harrison H. Schmitt, Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space (New York: Springer, 2006), 16.

⁴ Haym Benaroya, Leonhard Bernold, and Koon Meng Chua, “Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar Bases,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering 15, no. 2 (2002): 33, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2002)15:2(33).

⁵ Arlin Crotts, The New Moon: Water, Exploration and Future Habitation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 289–91.

⁶ Robert W. Phillips, Grappling With Gravity: How Will Life Adapt to Living in Space? (New York: Springer, 2012), 208.

⁷ Benaroya et al., “Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar Bases,”; and Roger D. Launius, “Why Go to the Moon? The Many Faces of Lunar Policy,” Acta Astronautica 70 (2011): 173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.07.013.

⁸ Marilyn Dudley-Flores and Thomas Gangale, “Forecasting the Political Economy of the Inner Solar System,” Astropolitics 10, no. 3 (2012): 206, https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2012.734948.

⁹ Paul D. Spudis, “The Moon as an Enabling Asset for Spaceflight,” Space Policy 32 (2015): 9–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.09.002.

¹⁰ George F. Sowers, “A Cislunar Transportation System Fueled by Lunar Resources,” Space Policy 37 (2016): 103–09, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2016.07.004.

¹¹ See also Everett Dolman, Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age (Abingdon: Routledge, 2001).

¹² Dennis Wingo, “Economic Development of the Solar System: The Heart of a 21st century Spacepower Theory,” in Towards the Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, ed. Charles D. Lutes and Peter L. Hays (Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2009), 151.

¹³ Bleddyn E. Bowen, War in Space: Strategy, Spacepower, Geopolitics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020).

¹⁴ Crotts, The New Moon, 249; and Launius, “Why Got to the Moon?”, 173.

¹⁵ Carlos M. Entrena Utrilla, “Asteroid-COTS: Developing the Cislunar Economy with Private-Public Partnerships,” Space Policy 39–40 (2017): 14–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2017.03.001.

¹⁶ James D. Rendleman, “A Strategy for Space Assurance,” Astropolitics 8, no. 2–3 (2010): 220–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2010.523927.

¹⁷ Donald Rapp, “Solar Power Beamed from Spac.” Astropolitics 5, no. 1 (2007): 63–86, https://doi.org/10.1080/14777620701509215.

¹⁸ Schmitt, Return to the Moon, 63; and Dudley-Flores and Gangale, “Forecasting the Political Economy of the Inner Solar System,” 219.

¹⁹ By October 2022 the full list of participants included Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

²⁰ “The Artemis Accords,” NASA, undated, https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html.

²¹ “National Space Policy of the United States of America,” The White House, June 28, 2010, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf.

²² “U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” US Congress, May 13, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262.

²³ “Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America’s Human Space Exploration Program,” The White House, December 11, 2017, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-reinvigorating-americas-human-space-exploration-program/.

²⁴ “Space Policy Directive-2, Streamlining Regulations on Commercial Use of Space,” The White House, May 24, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-directive-2-streamlining-regulations-commercial-use-space/.

²⁵ “Space Policy Directive-3, National Space Traffic Management Policy,” The White House, June 18, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-directive-3-national-space-traffic-management-policy/.

²⁶ “National Space Policy of the United States of America,” The White House, December 9, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/National-Space-Policy.pdf.

²⁷ Nikita Perfilyev, “The Sino-Russian Space Entente,” Astropolitics 8, no. 1 (2010): 19–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2010.494516; James Oberg, “International Perspectives: Russia,” in Towards the Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, ed. Charles D. Lutes and Peter L. Hays (Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2009).

²⁸ “International Lunar Research Station: Guide for Partnership,” CNSA, June 16, 2021, http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/english/n6465652/n6465653/c6812150/content.html.

²⁹ A. J. Tellis, “China’s Military Space Strategy,” Survival 49, no. 3 (2007): 41–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330701564752; ESPI, “ESPI Briefs No. 07 – China’s 2016 White Paper on Space: An Analysis,” 2017, https://espi.or.at/publications/espi-executive-briefs/category/5-espi-executive-briefs.

³⁰ Kevin Pollpeter, Timothy Ditter, Anthony Miller, and Brian Waidelich, “China´s Space Narrative: Examining the Portrayal of the US-China Space Relations in Chinese Sources and its Implication for the United States,” 2020, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/Conference-2020/CASI%20Conference%20China%20Space%20Narrative.pdf?ver=FGoQ8Wm2DypB4FaZDWuNTQ%3d%3d, 48.

³¹ Curtis J. Milhaupt and Li-Wen Lin, “We Are the (National) Champions: Understanding the Mechanisms of State Capitalism in China,” Stanford Law Review 65, no. 4 (2013): 697–759.

³² ESA is not an agency of the European Union (EU). It is, however, developing its own space projects like the Galileo navigational constellation and the Copernicus photoreconnaissance system for the EU.

³³ “Moon Village,” ESA, 2016, https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Ministerial_Council_2016/Moon_Village.

³⁴ Sheng-Chih Wang, Transatlantic Space Politics: Competition and Cooperation above the Clouds (New York: Routledge, 2013).

³⁵ See Astropolitics 17:1 (2019).

³⁶ Crotts, The New Moon, 307.

³⁷ NASA, “NASA Announces Artemis Concept Awards for Nuclear Power on Moon,” 21^st June 2022, available at https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-artemis-concept-awards-for-nuclear-power-on-moon.

³⁸ David Koebel et al., “Analysis of Landing Site Attributes for Future Missions Targeting the Rim of the Lunar South Pole Aitken Basin,” Acta Astronautica 80 (2012): 197–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.03.007.

³⁹ Crotts, The New Moon, 221–35.

⁴⁰ Martin Elvis, Tony Milligan, and Alanna Krolikowski, “The Peaks of Eternal Light: A Near-Term Property Issue on the Moon,” Space Policy 38 (2016): 31–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2016.05.011; Koebel et al., “Analysis of Landing Site Attributes for Future Missions Targeting the Rim of the Lunar South Pole Aitken Basin; and Crotts, The New Moon, 218.

⁴¹ Philipp Gläser et al., “Illumination Conditions at the Lunar Poles: Implications for Future Exploration,” Planetary and Space Science 162 (2018): 170–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.07.006.

⁴² See Jessica Flahaut et al., “Regions of Interest (ROI) for Future Exploration Missions to the Lunar South Pole,” Planetary and Space Science 180 (2020): 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2019.104750.

⁴³ Ian A. Crawford, “Lunar Resources: A Review,” Progress in Physical Geography (2015): 149, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133314567585.

⁴⁴ Crotts, The New Moon, 238–49.

⁴⁵ “Researchers Create First Global Map of Water in MOON’S soil,” Brown University, September 13, 2017, https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-09-13/moonwater.

⁴⁶ See, for example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/30/space-race-china-david-thompson/.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Charles University Cooperatio Program, research area POLS.